When Galileo defended the idea that the sun was the center of the solar system and not the Earth he was criticized by the Catholic church and even put under house arrest until he died. Today, I doubt there's many theists that still believe the Earth is the center of the universe. So what changed? Why is it that evolution and other scientific theories are rejected by religions when we have even more evidence of evolution than Galileo had of a heliocentric solar system. A hundred years from now someone is going to be considered a crack pot if they don't believe in evolution just like a heliocentric solar system is now. So my question is this...

At 5/5/2011 9:45:12 PM, abirenbaum wrote:When Galileo defended the idea that the sun was the center of the solar system and not the Earth he was criticized by the Catholic church and even put under house arrest until he died. Today, I doubt there's many theists that still believe the Earth is the center of the universe. So what changed? Why is it that evolution and other scientific theories are rejected by religions when we have even more evidence of evolution than Galileo had of a heliocentric solar system. A hundred years from now someone is going to be considered a crack pot if they don't believe in evolution just like a heliocentric solar system is now. So my question is this...

Theists, what do you think about modern science such as evolution.

Well Galileo wasn't trying to defeat the Church. He was pointing out that their interpretation wasn't correct. The Church had (as they had done before) stepped over the line and went into an area they didn't belong. Humans make mistakes, I believe they have corrected this though.

I believe Galileo didn't even mean to go against the Church. But he did get caught up in it all.

As to your other point. Only time will tell if evolution will remain. I personally don't like this kind of science. You can't really apply it or test it. And the agenda behind it just seems a bit over the top, unlike Galileo.

At 5/5/2011 11:21:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:I hate science because it threatens my beliefs and it is obviously used as a launching pad to perniciously impose a materialistic, atheistic, evilutionistic paradigm upon impressionable young minds.

At 5/5/2011 11:10:08 PM, jharry wrote:As to your other point. Only time will tell if evolution will remain. I personally don't like this kind of science. You can't really apply it or test it. And the agenda behind it just seems a bit over the top, unlike Galileo.

Evolution has quite a few applications in real life, and you can test it, easily. And i fail to see what sort of agenda scientists have with evolution, beyond trying to educate the public as to what evolution really is.

At 5/5/2011 11:10:08 PM, jharry wrote:As to your other point. Only time will tell if evolution will remain. I personally don't like this kind of science. You can't really apply it or test it. And the agenda behind it just seems a bit over the top, unlike Galileo.

Evolution has quite a few applications in real life, and you can test it, easily. And i fail to see what sort of agenda scientists have with evolution, beyond trying to educate the public as to what evolution really is.

1) they believe the theory is false and it is - all theories are false

2) it directly challenges something they do not wish to be false

If the first statement really seems odd to you then consider that at one point we thought we knew Newton's theory of gravity was correct, we now know it is false. We thought we knew at one point that Einsteins theory of gravity was correct we now know it is false. Now we don't even know which of the various competing theories we think is true (loop quantum gravity, string theory, the recently proposed unified field theory, is dark matter a real thing or is the theory of gravity [whatever it is] simply in need of perturbation analysis). But the one thing we know is that Einsteins theory is certainly false (it can not resolve space/time discreet variables, deal with quantum effects, model the early universe, etc. ).

The main reason that people tend to think theists are a bit of a loon when they say evolution is false is that they

1) are childish and use terms like evolutionauts

2) make retarded claims such as "there are no transitional fossils", "I ain't never seen no dog give birth to no cat" and of course "see this here bananna ..."

But my main point was as simple as this - there are nuts on all sides of an issue, and there are just as many people who accept evolution for reasons which are clearly based on fallacy as there are people who reject it for equally fallacious reasons. If you do not believe this then ask anyone who accepts evolution the following question :

1) Can one species of animal give birth to a new species of animal (they can)

2) Is DNA the source of heredity (it isn't)

3) Is natural selection the mechanism by which populations evolve (it isn't)

4) What is a species (there is significant contention on the definition and even if it is meaningful to define it at all)

5) Do certain biological systems just come together on their own regardless of the environment, i.e, act like they are meant to be that way (yes, it is called self-organization)

6) Does evolution deal with how life started? (evolution and abiogenesis are blurring together because it is no longer clear where to drawn the line at life and the processes seem to be the same right from amino acid -> rna -> protocells -> first cells)

and some silly ones which a lot of people will get wrong

7) If people came from monkeys why are there still monkeys now?

8) When did we find the "missing link"?

9) If you were to breed a person and a ape would the DNA be closer to a person or an ape?

10) How many gaps are in the fossil record?

What you will find is that most people will accept evolution not because they have studied the evidence but simply because someone told them it is true. What does that remind you of?

At 5/5/2011 9:45:12 PM, abirenbaum wrote:When Galileo defended the idea that the sun was the center of the solar system and not the Earth he was criticized by the Catholic church and even put under house arrest until he died. Today, I doubt there's many theists that still believe the Earth is the center of the universe. So what changed? Why is it that evolution and other scientific theories are rejected by religions when we have even more evidence of evolution than Galileo had of a heliocentric solar system. A hundred years from now someone is going to be considered a crack pot if they don't believe in evolution just like a heliocentric solar system is now. So my question is this...

Theists, what do you think about modern science such as evolution.

At some point people are going to actually take a history class and stop regurgitating fantastic misrepresentations. Galileo purposefully disobeyed the Pope and publicly mocked him with his representation of the Pope as "Simplicio" in his book, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems." The fact that Galileo was not immediately executed is yet more evidence that the Spanish inquisition was decidedly more docile than revisionist histories typically envision it. The Pope is the one that ASKED Galileo to write about the Heliocentric model. His only request was that he do an unbiased and objective treatment of both the Heliocentric and Geocentric model respectively. The fact Galileo himself was a theist and remained one till his death tends to support the thesis that science - modern or otherwise - is not fundamentally at odds with theism.

Galileo purposefully disobeyed the Pope and publicly mocked him with his representation of the Pope as "Simplicio" in his book, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems." The fact that Galileo was not immediately executed is yet more evidence that the Spanish inquisition was decidedly more docile than revisionist histories typically envision it. The Pope is the one that ASKED Galileo to write about the Heliocentric model. His only request was that he do an unbiased and objective treatment of both the Heliocentric and Geocentric model respectively. The fact Galileo himself was a theist and remained one till his death tends to support the thesis that science - modern or otherwise - is not fundamentally at odds with theism.

oh. I thought it was an accident. I thought the Pope and Galileo were buds before the book mistake. But still, your right. It wasnt at all like the OP presented.

At 5/5/2011 11:10:08 PM, jharry wrote:As to your other point. Only time will tell if evolution will remain. I personally don't like this kind of science. You can't really apply it or test it. And the agenda behind it just seems a bit over the top, unlike Galileo.

Evolution has quite a few applications in real life, and you can test it, easily. And i fail to see what sort of agenda scientists have with evolution, beyond trying to educate the public as to what evolution really is.

First of all theists look upon science. Islam inculcates a sense of exploration among believers.

Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.Quran 2:164

Heliocentric Theory: Muslims scientists accepted the spherical shape of earth and calculated its circumference. They openly discussed and debated Ptolemy's idea of geocentric world - however they did not reject the model as such.

Evolution: Evolution does not necessarily contradicts Islam. However, I personally reject evolution as I don't think it is having sufficient scientific proof. The scientific works assume it to be true and interprets the world accordingly. In my experience the people who argue about evolution are motivated by their faith rather than thirst for knowledge. I might change my mind on evolution if I see any proof.

The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

At 5/6/2011 1:52:07 AM, baggins wrote:Evolution: Evolution does not necessarily contradicts Islam. However, I personally reject evolution as I don't think it is having sufficient scientific proof. The scientific works assume it to be true and interprets the world accordingly. In my experience the people who argue about evolution are motivated by their faith rather than thirst for knowledge. I might change my mind on evolution if I see any proof.

It is my feeling on trough scientific literature that evolution has been presumed. However I am hindered by the fact that I am not a biologist. Whenever I tried to discuss it with any biologists (I know several) - they inundate me with terms and I get a feeling at back of my mind that they do not know what they are talking about. I do not see it necessary to come to definite conclusion on the topic - so I am not motivated to learn biology from start.

The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

At 5/6/2011 2:17:43 AM, baggins wrote:It is my feeling on trough scientific literature that evolution has been presumed. However I am hindered by the fact that I am not a biologist. Whenever I tried to discuss it with any biologists (I know several) - they inundate me with terms and I get a feeling at back of my mind that they do not know what they are talking about. I do not see it necessary to come to definite conclusion on the topic - so I am not motivated to learn biology from start.

Oh, so in other words, if you see evidence, you will accept evolution, but the evidence that you did see is too complicated for you to understand. Okay, thats understandable.

But just as an FYI, evolution was never presumed. When Evolution was first presented, it was widely unpopular, critisized and mocked, and it took a long time and a lot of evidence for scientists to finnaly realize that the evidence does infact support evolution. In many ways it was worse than the position creationism is in right now. The reason so many scientists and science in general accept evolution is because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

First of all theists look upon science. Islam inculcates a sense of exploration among believers.

Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.Quran 2:164

Heliocentric Theory: Muslims scientists accepted the spherical shape of earth and calculated its circumference. They openly discussed and debated Ptolemy's idea of geocentric world - however they did not reject the model as such.

Evolution: Evolution does not necessarily contradicts Islam. However, I personally reject evolution as I don't think it is having sufficient scientific proof. The scientific works assume it to be true and interprets the world accordingly. In my experience the people who argue about evolution are motivated by their faith rather than thirst for knowledge. I might change my mind on evolution if I see any proof.

Also, i believe that the majority of muslim scientists back in the days believed that the sun revolved around the earth due to some passages in the Quran, as well as the utter lack of passages in the Quran that stated otherwise.

Theistic Evolution makes the most sense to me. All theories are true to a point and all theories are false to a point. All that is true and all that is false is in the eye of the beholder. If you believe it to be true... Then it is true in your reality. If you believe it to be false... Then it is false in your reality.

You are more or less correct in your analysis of my position. Though I am currently more inclined against evolution rather than for. I am prepared to change my mind.

When Evolution was first presented, it was widely unpopular, critisized and mocked...

I actually wonder how much of the criticism was scientific. I also suspect that the support was also ideological. After all eugenics was also considered scientific.

Also, i believe that the majority of muslim scientists back in the days believed that the sun revolved around the earth due to some passages in the Quran, as well as the utter lack of passages in the Quran that stated otherwise.

If we take a frame of reference attached to earth, sun does rotate around earth. This can be easily shown by common experience.

I don't think that there is any evidence to show Muslims were against heliocentric theory. They were dissatisfied with Ptolemy, but they did not propose an alternative.

Galileo adopted heliocentric theory after developing telescope. Do you know that whole field of physical optics was researched by Muslims?

At 5/6/2011 2:28:10 AM, tkubok wrote:Also, i believe that the majority of muslim scientists back in the days believed that the sun revolved around the earth due to some passages in the Quran, as well as the utter lack of passages in the Quran that stated otherwise.

Arabs were the leading scientists in the Islamic Golden age. They were masters in astronomy at their times. What lead them to establishing certain scientific facts was the Qur'an. The Qur'an never hindered any scientific progress, let alone something regarding the orbit of the sun. You know, Islam uses the moon calendar - a more precise on than the solar calendar. We know that the moon and the sun were distinguished in their orbits, and the Qur'an confirmed that by saying that both the sun and the moon swim in their own orbits. This is a fact. The Qur'an never claimed that the sun orbits around the Earth.

As for evolution, there is not a single teaching in Islam that contradicts it as a whole - at all. In fact, the teachings of the Qur'an regarding pre-evolutionary creation have no conflict with science either. And, the idea of evolution came before Darwin - he introduced natural selection. We know for a fact that Muslim biologists who predated Darwin by many centuries had written on he subject of animals and the idea of evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...

What Muslims dispute is whether or not humans evolved from a common ancestor alongside apes. This is called a "gray matter." Evolutionary biologists have a variety of opinions regarding how certain processes in evolution happen, but they do not reject the general idea. What is the problem with Muslims having disputes over a little fragment of evolution, but not the entire idea? I don't see a problem. I personally do not reject evolution as a whole, and I had critical views of it before, and I don't see anything in Islam that condemns the idea at all - so I can settle my views. Regarding humans evolving from animals, I don't see a problem between reconciling Adam and Eve with an evolutionary process, although I am most likely agnostic on the matter of humans evolving from animals.

(I too will provide commentary on swimmers / Even though I have never been in water)

1. I was able to follow a surprisingly large part of it.

2. The works highlighted the weaknesses. They talked in the way real scientist do. Unlike some of the evolutionist I have read.

3. The paper tried to examine whether the tree of life should have single ancestor or multiple ancestors - linked together by horizontal gene transfer. It decided that single source of life is more probable. Please note - this study also assumes evolution through genetic mutation.

4. Theobald has said:

The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local' common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing

Thanks for the reference, I enjoyed reading it.

The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

This is true, but there are other papers which will test the heredity through DNA, it is not as if that is assumed in general without evidence.

Just consider for example if you were to argue for Jesus as God based on the account of the ressurection in the Bible.

This would be then challenged, "well you are assuming that the Bible is true"

You could then challenge this by defending the bible as a historical document, and for each of these arguments they could be challenged "well you are assuming that X is true"

It is always the case that arguments will rest on presuppositions, and I agree they have to be able to be supported. I would further simple argue that evolutionary theory is so well supported - though it is not as well defined and precise as many appear to think that it is.

At 5/6/2011 11:46:25 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:It is always the case that arguments will rest on presuppositions, and I agree they have to be able to be supported. I would further simple argue that evolutionary theory is so well supported - though it is not as well defined and precise as many appear to think that it is.

I appreciate your position. Thing is - as far as I am concerned - my faith does not depend on evolution either way. Moreover it is not my subject. So I am not really bothered.

Main reason I tend to disagree with evolution is the aggression with which evolution is presented and jargon attacks I face when I try to ask question (And I am susceptible to that). For some reason, creationists are not able to do that with me.

On other hand, even if evolution turns out to be false - it does not mean intelligent design is the only alternative. I believe that 'I don't know' is a perfectly valid and exciting answer.

The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

Main reason I tend to disagree with evolution is the aggression with which evolution is presented and jargon attacks I face when I try to ask question (And I am susceptible to that).

That is because they don't understand it and can not answer the question and they either have to face their own ignorance or prevent further questions.

For some reason, creationists are not able to do that with me.

That is because atheists have no souls.

On other hand, even if evolution turns out to be false - it does not mean intelligent design is the only alternative. I believe that 'I don't know' is a perfectly valid and exciting answer.

It is false, it is just the least false thing we know at this time. In general we don't know anything, we don't even know the things we don't know. But of course creationists get a bad name and if you ask a question about evolution you will be assumed to be another bananna man and subject to ridicule.

That is not overly fair, but it works the other way too. How often have you seen an atheist say something and then they are attacked by a theist with "yeah well in your world view there is no reason for you not to rape babies". What the hell man, I was just asking for clarification on the origin of limbo.